Gettysburg National Military Park Ranger Karlton Smith explores the last moments of the Confederacy through the eyes of James Longstreet at the conclusion of the Appomattox Campaign.
I just want to thank the Gettysburg NPS for putting these up on RU-vid! I have to admit that civil war buffs like me in my generation are spoiled by the easy access of all this information compared to the old timers who had to read countless books putting this info together. Thank you so much!
Nice presentation, however there was 1 falt, Longstreet was born on January 8th,1821 and died on January 2nd, 1904. This means that Longstreet died at age 82 just 6 days shy of his 83rd birthday. Peace to his bones, the was the last of the Confederate High Command.From Alaska
You still need to read the books. NO source today in "cancel culture" or the marxist education industry is going to give you the true story like the eyewitnesses did, in their own memoirs.
I enjoyed the lecture very much. When I lived in Gainesville Georgia, I was part of The Longstreet Society. I worked in LE and visited his home site there next a city pool. A small section of his old grapevine still grew there in the late 1980’s/early 1990’s. He also owned a hotel visited by a future president and part of it still stood. Gen Longstreet is buried in Gainesville Ga.
I wish I would have stayed in nearby Shippensburg when I finished college. I could pop over the mountain of an evening, on the most beautiful drive imaginable, and just walk the battlefield or sit on Little Round Top and contemplate. You can bet I would be attending every one of these lectures.
Rickys Half Same here! His talks are always interesting. I've learned so much from all the Gettysburg presenters, but I find Ranger Matt Atkinson's colorful personality & charming little asides endearing.
My great, great,great uncle died during Picketts charge. His brother was captured at Sailors Creek, Va the last battle of the war. There were 3 brothers with the 4th Va. infantry out of Appomattox, Va.
I think Park Ranger Karlton Smith is the real Longstreet, assaulted by that little kid down there, who continuously batters against his presentation. All the while, Park Ranger Karlton Smith never shook, never shivered, but did continue said presentation against all odds, and little boys... thumbs up!
@@sportsmediaamerica supplies being limited, they ran out of coffee for the General and had to make due with the Chicory root, according to David McCullough's narration.
Blaming Longstreet for the Confederate defeat at Gettysburg is stupid, The Confederates were facing a larger and better supplied army that was entrench on high ground. Lee should have seen this and followed Longstreet's advice to move off and find better ground to fight on
Given all factors military, tactical, strategic & political, one of the best things Lee could have done is pull away from Gettysberg, wheel around quietly, steal a day's march on Meade and drive for Washington. This is what Longstreet recommended. At worst, this course of action would simply give Lee an opportunity to find more favorable ground. At best, it could possibly have forced a political settlement by threatening Washington.
Maybe, I'm not disagreeing with you, but Lee is ultimately to blame in the larger sense. He married himself to a bad battle plan that gave every advantage to the enemy. It could be forgiven if Lee had no other options but at that point, Lee had MANY options. Arguably the best is Longstreet's advice to march on Washington. At worst, at worst, that gives Lee a chance to manuever the AoP into a better position to attack or even better, entice the AoP into recklessly attacking the AoNV in a desperate attempt to save Washington.
No Lee did not believe his army was invincible. This myth about Lee seems to be persistent. Not sure why. He was very aware that the South had extremely limited means in comparison to the North and knew the South would definitely lose a protracted war. I think maybe people are confusing made up history in movies where lines are just made up for dramatic effect (yes even in movies about real events like the civil war) with actual facts & history.
The Appomattox River is a tributary of the James River, approximately 157 miles (253 km) long, in central and eastern Virginia in the United States, named for the Appomattocs Indian tribe who lived along its lower banks in the 17th century. It drains a cotton and tobacco-growing region of the Piedmont and coastal plain southwest of Richmond. The English colonists in Virginia at first tried to rename the Appomattox as the "Bristoll River", however this name did not catch on, while the native one did. There are numerous historical spelling variants, such as Apamatuck, Apamutiky, Appamattuck, Appomattake, and Apumetecs, among others.
Thank you GettysburgNPS! Again and again May your funds and security of existence never fail or be hindered. This my prayers of my spirit heart and soul Amen amen
Absolutely superb presentation! Mr. Smith tells this story with a nice tempo of detail and gets at all the key actions of this campaign. Great detail of Longstreet's stalwart actions, his unwaivering fighting spirit all the way to the end. Undoubtedly a comfort to General Lee along with the sound counsil he always got from Longstreet. Lee and Longstreet were the best senior & subordinate team in Confederate Army, and they stayed true to each other's respect of each other to the very moment they parted ways.
If General Longstreet had not been wounded in the Wilderness, the Overland campaign would have have been conducted differently.For instance, if Longstreet had been in command instead of Anderson at the North Anna, Longstreet would probably brought about a general engagement that might have halted Grant’s advance. But we do not know how Grant would have reacted to the different moves. Grant was not the sort of commander who stuck to a plan not matter what.He could size up a fluid situation and write new and precise orders as fast as a modern commander could send them by radio.
@@JRobbySh ,If you think Grant(or any other Civil war commander,North over South)could write orders and have them carried out as fast as modern commanders could by radio,maybe you shouldn't be commenting.That is the most ludicrous,uneducated statement ever presented.Especially when you consider that if orders could've been conveyed and followed quickly,The outcome may have been very different.
@@davidh1249 True. A radio message could br changed many times in the time it takes a written order to be delivered. The securty of a radio message could also be superior.
@@JRobbySh Nothing would have halted Grant's advance. The overwhelming numbers and logistics of the Union was always going to wear down the limited resources of the Rebels. You should re-watch the BBQ scene near the beginning of "Gone with the Wind," where Rhett Butler accurately describes the war and its inevitable outcome. (Of course I know that Butler is a fictional character whose line are written for him by people with a historical perspective he could not have.)
Petersburg,VA has lots of Revolutionary War history too. Marquis De Lafayette was all over that place and there was a Revolutionary War battle of Petersburg in 1781. The Continental army marched down Route 1 to defeat Cornwallis at Yorktown. Cool place.
I was listening to this awesome video and my Buckingham County, VA ears went up with "Farmville.." :D Great job, as always!!! Love these presentations.
A distant cousin of mine, Lt. Col. John Cheves Haskell was involved in the Battle at Appomattox, and was asked by General Lee to lead the Army of Northern Virginia's artillery to the surrender (his brother, Colonel Alexander Cheves Haskell, commander of the 7th south Carolina Cavalry Regiment, led the Army's cavalry to the surrender. John was present for the Custer episode and wrote about it in his memoirs. He was nowhere as nice as Longstreet or the other officer mentioned in his description of the event and it is obvious he had little regard for Custer after the event. He says Custer's horse was worn out and Custer wanted John's horse to ride back to his own lines. John told him it wasn't available for sale or plunder. He was also approached by Grant at the surrender who wanted to buy the horse and said it was the handsomest horse he had ever seen. He turned Grant down, too. According to the story, Grant was on a train with Wade Hampton going to Pemberton's funeral and was talking about it, and Hampton knew who he was talking about since John had married his daughter, Sally Buck. Alexander, meanwhile, married Alice Van Yeveren Alexander, E.P. Alexander's sister, supported Wade Hampton's run for governor, was appointed to the South Carolina Supreme Court, and broke with the Democratic Party to run against Ben Tillman for governor in 1890. Alex's daughter Mary moved to Boston, started a school for girls, and eventually met and became intimate friends with Kahlil Gibran, and was one of his financial benefactors.
I’m grateful lectures that mention the Confederacy and our leaders are still allowed to be on RU-vid. All the efforts to erase an entire section of the country in the 1860s is asinine.
If Lee had listened to Longstreet at Gettysburg the outcome of that battle could and probably would have been vastly different. Old Pete tried to tell Lee to flank the federal position after day 1 and find more favorable ground for the confederate army....however Lee would not listen. I do not believe in any way that Longstreet contributed to the defeat at Gettysburg by any of his actions and false accusations of "pouting and deliberately taking his time" in deploying his divisions on the second day of battle or the third! Longstreet told Lee before Pickett's charge"“General, I have been a soldier all my life. I have been with soldiers engaged in fights by couples, by squads, companies, regiments and armies, and I should know . . what soldiers can do. It is my opinion that no 15,000 men ever arrayed for battle can take that position.” He was proven correct, many brave Southern boys paid the price; but they advanced as ordered.
+Joseph Weaver It was General Ewell that did not attempt to take Culp's hill. I agree completely with you Joseph, if Stonewall had been leading the corps that day Culp's hill and Cemetery ridge would have been taken.
The ANV did not execute its attacks efficiently. Meade managed the battle better than Lee did. But in the end, its gets down in what happened in seven actions, and either side could have won.
It has always been my belief that if Lee had Jackson at Gettysburg, the battle would have ended much differently. Lee respected his ability, tactics, and leadership talents more than any other subordinate. His slashing flank attacks, and organizational skills , along with his ability to maneuver troops swiftly to meet the foe would have made a tremendous difference.
Longstreet said :I think that this attack will fail.Even me, seeing the picture and studying the situation of this attack,will never give this order,it was suicide,I am very sorry to tell this ,about those heroes who gave their blood and their lives in Picket´s Charge...
Excellent presentation. It was through no fault of Pickett that his division no longer existed. That was laid At Lee’s feet. Thumbs down to the adult refusing to tend to the child.
Lee recognized that in a long war, all the advantages accrued to the North. From Day One of his promotion to command, he relied upon audacity to make up for everything else. To a surprising degree, this worked, but at Gettysburg he simply went too far. But to his him his due, he may not have been inclined to strike for Washington at this time due to his lack of cavalry and with that, he would have been marching blind--never sure if the enemy was outflanking him or even surrounding his army.
For those who just genuinely cannot understand the speaker (he is a great educator but a bit mushy mouthed, no offense!) put the video speed to 1.5, it makes him very clear.
My Great x 3 grandfather, Union Army was wounded while attacking rebel wagons headed west near Jetersville . He was sent to a hospital and that finished the war for the nineteen-year-old corporal. !st bragade General Davies. April 5.
I've always wondered what the command structure would've been had Lee been able to reach the Carolinas and link up with Johnston; like who was senior to whom? Lee's corps command was pretty thin by the beginning of April apart from Longstreet. Would Gordon have kept a corps command?
Lee was senior to J Johnston, which is one the reasons, maybe the major reason why he and Pres. Davis didn't get along. JJ was a colonel in the US Army when he retired and senior to all the others Davis appointed to the rank of major general in 1861. He was furious when he was appointed fourth behind AS Johnston, Lee and Beauregard. Most likely Grant would've been right on Lee's rear and with Sherman in JJ's front, I doubt they would've even had time to rearrange the command structure, but to answer your question, Lee was senior.
LET THE DEAD REST IN PEACE. I say this for all my ancestors who fought battles for colonial American, revolutionary,War of 1812,WW1, WW11,VIETNAM, DesertSheid/DesertStorm and Eduring Freedom .
Recent scholarship has determined that Lee and Longstreet were not discussing the possibility of surrender. Instead Lee's cooler had been either lost or destroyed when it bounced off a wagon somewhere near Sayler's Creek. Lee asked his friend what type of cooler he should replace it with. Longstreet answered, "not Yeti." Thus historians have been confused for over 150 years.
I always thought it was Pickett’s stupidity with that insane charge. I just finished “Killer Angels” Lee was the guy that insisted the charge went ahead, He believed in his own invincibility, my words. I am now reading “The last full measure” Lee is about to get his Waterloo, Appomattox. Longstreet took a lot of heat but it was not his fault, Lee would not listen to anyone.
When I think of a pouting Longstreet insisting upon Lee's plan to attack up the Emmitsburg Road in echelon; that is, from south to north across the Union front I get slightly ill. The conditions had so changed since Longstreet was ordered to move, eight hours previously, that they were obsolete. It was his duty to adjust the tactics to meet the changed conditions on the field or to check with Lee. He did neither. Then something unusual happened. Generals Hood and McClaws had one of those "are you seeing what I'm seeing" meetings. A colonel reached Hood a paper. It was a document indicating that any orders to send men against what was before them would be followed but under protest. Hood not only signed the petition, he and McLaws violated orders. They would make a frontal assault. Futile and senseless though it was, the alternative was the echelon attack Longstreet ordered, and that was insane. This way their men - or, perhaps more accurately, "boys" - will not fall having been shot in the back; they will die with the dignity they deserve, facing the enemy. Longstreet was visibly upset because Lee had hurt his feelings by not attempting to steal past Meade's left, get between Meade and Washington, and refight Fredericksburg under completely novel conditions. But that is neither here nor there. The point is this: Despite being all but begged by McLaws and JOHN BELL HOOD, of all people, THREE TIMES not to order them to witness their soldiers being murdered, Longstreet would not relent. Knowing that Lee's plan was obsolete when time came to launch his attack, Longstreet stood firm. Knowing that Sickles' salient was not contemplated in Lee's plan or orders and that adjustments were essential, Longstreet was immovable. "We will follow Lee's orders," said Longstreet, knowing that two divisions would be butchered for no gain but to assuage his bitterness and soothe his pride. Longstreet ordered them to attack and they at last went forward. Outnumbered, outgunned, but most of all, outmaneuvered, not by Meade but by Longstreet, they went, Hood's Texans, who had the worst of it, with their usual elan, their spirit, their ferociousness, their fearlessness - FORWARD, they went, too many brave, young men.
***** ....yes...it was stated that in private General Lee had mentioned to a confidant that he was frustrated by Longstreet on July 2nd AND 3rd....he said Longstreet " Had the slows" on those two days. It is well known and was observed that Lee was chafing , wondering what was taking Longstreet SO LONG to attack on the second day AND again on the third. Lee OFFICIALLY reported that " a lack of concert" caused the defeat and HE accepted the blame himself. The truth is that upon detailed study of Gettysburg, Lee was let down greatly by some of his most important officers over and over again.....his plan was bold....it could have succeeded if conducted properly. Longstreet let Lee down at the critical moment when all depended on him. Heth DISOBEYED Lee's instruction NOT to bring on a " general engagement" on July 1st. Lee's well thought out plan to draw the Union Army out, and pounce on it corps by corps as it came up was ruined by what his officers did next. Ewell FAILED to take Culp's Hill, though ORDERED by Lee on the 1st to do so....BEFORE it could be reinforced. Longstreet took SO LONG on the 2nd to attack that Meade had PLENTY of time to reinforce the both ends of his line. On the third day, Longstreet's delay....the attack was supposed to be in the MORNING....again gave time for Meade to reinforce the center from both ends of his line. Lee had COUNTED on fighting on Culp's Hill to draw off any possible reinforcements that could go to the center. The MOST damaging event came when Jeb Stuart FAILED to break through to the rear of the Union center with his cavalry of thousands of troopers. It was Custer who led head on assaults with only 750 Michigan Wolverines of the 7th cavalry to stop the THOUSANDS of Stuart's men out on the Hanover Road, as they emerged from the Rummel farm. Stuart would have been ONE of the " pincers", ( and Picket -Pettigrew the other), to cut the Union Army in half that day. Compounding these disasters was Longstreet's handling of his artillery under his men E.P. Alexander, Sandy Pendleton, and J.B. Walton. The massive bombardment overshot the Union troops in the center because the forward reconnaisance was WRONG....the Union troops were FORWARD on the line, NOT in the rear in reserve, where the shells landed. Even WORSE was that the SUPPORTING ARTILLERY for Pickett's Charge NEVER APPEARED !!! They were supposed to have had artillery covering their advance !! Then, while Longstreet watched, NONE of the supporting brigades were ordered into the attack...like Wilcox's....and as a result, the Vermont troops ENFILADED the advancing Confederates from the SIDE with withering fire !! The troops under Pettigrew advanced all the way to the low wall and were met by canister as hand to hand combat erupted and the CT troops won 5 medals of honor there. A LARGE contingent of Pickett's men STOPPED near the Emmitsburg Road and advanced no further, as men were mowed down at the split rail fence because the "pioneers" had FAILED to remove that fence, and it is not known where Pickett was at that time. He SURELY was NOT doing what Armistead and Garnett did at the head of their troops ! This scene explains Lee's hostility toward Pickett that REALLY boiled over when Pickett was at a FISH BAKE when his men were being DEFEATED at Five Forks, in April 1865. Longstreet was NOT present at Lee's greatest triumph in Chancellorsville...yet, he PRESUMED to know BETTER than Lee at Gettsyburg and dragged his feet the whole time with the effect of SABOTAGING the entire battle ! In his book , Longstreet expends a MASSIVE effort defending himself against charges of being "late" and ruining Lee's battle plan. However, the sad truth is that the testimony of so many contradicts him...especially Walter Taylor.
***** Hard to say and were I qualified to venture an opinion I hope it would be with sufficient caveats. But since you asked: The best brigade commander, although he wasn't given his commission until Spottsylvania is the absolutely brilliant Emory Upton, previously colonel of a New York regiment. But this is too late to qualify and I can't single out another on the Union side. At the division level, Patrick Cleburne of the Army of Tennessee would probably get the most votes of those in knowledgeable about such matters as the best on either side. They might overlook John Bell Hood who did not do well to say the least as a corps and army commander, but in my view there was no better brigade or division commander on either side. Gettysburg notwithstanding, Lee had great corps commanders in Longstreet, Ewell and AP Hill in comparison to Meade's, who were dreadful in the Overland Campaign. Hancock was a first-rate corps commander and probably the best the North had, yet he was suffering from severe injuries received at Gettysburg during the Overland Campaign. Jubal Early and Phil Sheridan had their moments and of course JEB Stuart was a wonder of nature. He was in command of Jackson's assault after Jackson and then AP Hill fell. This seamless transfer could not have taken place in the Union army. Sedgwick gets unfair criticism - Grant, when he heard of Sedgwick's death at Spottsylvania, said this was equivalent to losing a division - and Meade was among the best corps commanders on either side but hampered by superiors. . A young colonel who had previously been on Grant's staff stopped by Grant's headquarters during the Overland Campaign. Grant asked him what the problem was with the Army of the Potomac and how could he fix the huge glitch that was so apparent. The colonel replied, "Get Ely Parker [a full-bloodied Indian on Grant's staff] drunk and have him scalp every corps commander you have." I've left some out who will occur to me later, but this is as far out on this limb as I am comfortable going. EDIT: George Thomas should be on anyone's list as one of the top three general officers of the entire Union army, but I suppose that this is a minority view. I am prepared to back this up but not here and now. SECOND EDIT: Bedford Forrest. One of only two general officers in the Confederate army singled out by Grant as superior. The other was Cleburne. Said by Sherman to be the greatest leader either side produced. So any discussion of generals that doesn't mention him is suspect. THIRD EDIT: Joe Hooker was a great division and corps commander and Meade, previously mentioned, led his division as well as anyone could have done. Now I've quit and will leave it to others to give credit to those I have without question overlooked.
***** I haven't watched the movie but of course "Pickett's Charge" was only the right wing of what more appropriately is "Longstreet's Assault." The left wing was commanded by a brigadier named Pettigrew who came to division command with the wounding of Heth of the first day. He led a wing that in retrospect, which makes us all geniuses, was far too motley, consisting mostly of North Carolinians along with Alabamians and Tennesseans. Pettigrew is one of the most fascinating officers of the War and it's a mystery to me why there's not a good biography of him.. That's a tough question regarding books. I've recently read or re-read "Landscape Turned Red: The Battle of Antietam" by Stephen Sears; "Lee and His Men at Gettysburg" by Clifford Dowdey; "A Stillness at Appomattox", the third in Bruce Catton's essential three volume history of the Army of the Potomac and the second book of Shelby Foote's narrative which is historically suspect in many parts but a pleasure to read. You won't waste your time with any of those. Douglas Southall Freeman's biography of Lee is considered by many to be definitive and his "Lee's Lieutenants" is basic reading for anyone interested in this stuff. Of course Grant's memoirs are also essential. Edward Porter Alexander, Lee's artillerist, wrote a trustworthy account of the war and John S. Mosby's memoirs are fun reading.
***** As I understand it what happened with Pickett is pretty much as you described. Something similar happened at Antietam when Lee asked John Bell Hood how his Texans were faring. Hood replied: "They're laying out there in the field." This wasn't overstatement; they took over eighty percent casualties there.
***** Antietam! What a waste of so many brave Southern men/soldiers. what were the Southern Generals thinking? They were able men but their ability to organise were not present at the battle known simply as Antietam. God bless the South.
therottenrook Longstreet was a good planner but the best General was Nathan Bedford Forrest. Grant, Sherman and Lee said the same thing about Forrest. Grant and Sherman said he was the most remarkable soldier the war produced on both sides. Forrest twice had Federal Officers Surrender without a battle. Forrest fought with his men never staying in the rear. He was wounded four times in battle and killed 32 men in hand to hand combat. His Cavalry captured over 30,000 Federal Troops. Jefferson Davis's mistake was not putting Forrest the Top Commander of the Western Campaign. Davis didn't think that someone that didn't go to West Point could be the leader of his Armies. Forrest was the best equipped Southern Calvery because he supplied his Calvery with his own money. His tactics we're not Orthodox and he was the first real Gurellia fighter and Union forces started using his tactics. You are right about Longstreet. Lee should have listened to his General's and Longstreet. The greatest victories for the South in the East we're planned by Stonewall Jackson and I don't know why some of the South's best Commander's we're shot by their own men by accidents. If Johnston and Jackson lived the South may have won.
good assessment! Johnson and Jackson knew when and where to be aggressive. Being outnumbered and out-resourced the south had no choice but to maneuver around and make due with what they had. All southern generals knew the south couldn't sustain a long drown out war with the overwhelming northern factories and population. The only hope the south had was to make the war too costly for the north.
@@666rivers I really enjoyed reading your reply to me. It was written with intelligence and conviction. Yes the Shenandoah Valley was where a Military genius out marched and out fought three Armies sometimes out numbered four to one but Jackson knew the ground and always arranged to bear superior numbers catching those other Generals in the right place at the right time. When Stonewall and Johnston were killed by friendly fire it took the to best field Generals out of the war for the South. The South had better Generals and they out marched the Union Army for four years starving and diseased. Stonewall's boys marched all day and night to flank the Union Army. Then Jackson stretched out a two mile attack line and marched through 2 miles through forest and fought and chased the Union Army all day at Chancellorsville. He was remarkable and he was right to say his men deserved the credit not him. They were remarkable soldiers that we will never see again.
I've always what the command structure would've been had Lee been able to reach the Carolinas and link up with Johnston; like who was senior to whom? Lee's corps command was pretty thin by the beginning of April apart from Longstreet. Would Gordon have kept a corps command?
Lee was senior to Johnston. Cooper (a Richmond desk jockey), Lee & Johnston were the 3 highest ranking generals in the Confederate Army... in that order.
So not only was Thomas Jackson shot by his own men & eventually died... Longstreet was also shot by his men as well??? I never knew that... I never realized Longstreet got as injured as he did by the end of the war... Lost an arm... Shot in the Neck... Damn!
The exact spot where Jackson was shot is now the museum and bookstore at Chancellorsville. Longstreet's exact spot is more vague near a railroad embankment at the Wilderness.
Longstreet did more than any other former confederate General to bring the south back into the Union with alacrity and returned his loyalty to The Union with more happiness than any other Confederate as well. Lost cause fools try to dog Longstreet but he was a fighter for the south and extremely competent as a commander. He was smart enough to let bygones be bygones and recognize that the confederacys loss meant that it never lawfully existed. I think he is one of only a few confederates who found future work with The United States Army as a associated but temporary commissioner working on reconstruction. He left this job fairly quickly as he had become very unpopular with embittered southerners by this time because of how quickly he returned his loyalty to Old Glory. I don't think he ever liked leaving her and was almost relieved that the confederacy lost.
the question of lawfulness is a complicated one. if the union is voluntary then the south had a right to leave it. if it is a contract that was signed and thus not allowed to leave lawfully this would only be true if both sides held up their end of the bargain. lincoln didn't allow this to be settled in court. he insisted on war. the civil war happened for the same reason as the revolutionary war. TAXES.
@@psilocybemusashi There is no legal way in which secession from The United States may occur. Because The Constitution makes no mention of how a signatory state may break the contract and leave, we must turn to contract law for the answer. Under contract law if I signatory wishes to be released from a contract but there is no provision for release within the contract, ALL the other signatories must UNANIMOUSLY agree to release the challenging signatory from the contract. So you see there is in fact a way Orr there was one until the law of victory in war closed that door. But even when it was possible the other states were never going to vote to let the south go....never. so you see it was in fact if not actuality impossible.
I have to question one thing said here- concerning Custer falling for the "Pickett's division" bluff. After Pickett's famous charge at Gettysburg and the loss of his entire unit, is it really believable that Custer didn't know that Pickett had no division? Union intelligence regularly kept track of the units they faced and I find it hard to believe that Custer would not have been aware of any division, even newly commanded by Pickett, being present on or near the battlefield. Pickett's Gettysburg reputation would have made him a man to keep track of and word would have gotten to Custer had Pickett been assigned a new command. The entire Union army would have known that fact from some captured rebel who was processed as a prisoner. There would be no reason to maintain secrecy about the fact and it would have been of great interest to the soldiers in the ranks to know who they were facing, not to mention the officers.
I think you drastically overestimate the capability of intelligence at the time. Chances are you wouldn't even be aware an opposing army getting a new commander unless you raid it in papers or some such. That said, it's an apocryphal story for a reason.
Cheesus Rice No, I think the intelligence was good enough in the Civil War that people were aware of who held commands, except when there might have been a turnover because of death in battle. Even then, they usually knew who was the second in command also. If you read Grant's Memoirs you'll find out that as they processed prisoners they kept track of which divisions they originated. It was pre- Geneva Convention and prisoners often answered all kinds of informative questions willingly, though some were misleading plants. Also, even in the South there were hard core Unionists who had wanted no part of secession, and they also provided the Union armies with military intelligence that was usable. The difficulties of intelligence was in estimating troop movements, supplies, future plans etc, not in knowing who held commands of the enemy divisions Maybe you should reassess your estimation of intelligence capabilities too. Also, I did treat this as apocryphal, which is why I questioned its beleivability- it didn't sound right when I heard it said. I've read grant's Memoirs 25-30 times (LOTS of information to absorb) and am doing it again now, and he gives a person a very good idea of how effective their intelligence was, the different ways it was obtained, and how it was used or disregarded as unreliable.
TedBronson1918 I think you're simply incorrect. The vast majority of intelligence was poor (McClellan comes to mind, as well as Lee prior to Gettysburg), or there was a lack of or false or delayed information. They wouldn't keep track of commanders (much less a second-in-command), are you serious? Best they could probably devote on any practical (or even unnecessary) level would be corps commanders and up. Even then they don't have 'commander profiles' or silly stuff like that. "Pickett's Gettysburg reputation would have made him a man to keep track of and word would have gotten to Custer had Pickett been assigned a new command." This is simply ridiculous, being (one) of the division commanders in a charge doesn't make you a 'high profile' target. Keeping track of the divisions prisoners originated from isn't relevant to them knowing who the commander is at any given time. They'd probably only find out that information once the prisoners were questioned. And even then, they wouldn't go, "Oh! The name of the division commander is ___! Clearly his name alone justifies me sending over the name of someone who will likely die in a battle to a commander on the field!" You think that it's easy to locate and name commanders of divisions, but harder to figure out the movement of a mass of troops? That's where they devote resources, not to the commanders, at all. Enemy plans are *obviously* harder to retrieve, as are commanders. Why? That isn't something that can be deciphered as easily as seeing a mass of troops and figuring out what direction they're going. You have to understand with memoirs he isn't going to regard everything they did and did not know, especially at the division level. He wouldn't write "Pickett's Division - although we didn't know Pickett was the commander at the time."
Actually the intelligence service set up by Hooker (BMI, Bureau of Military Intelligence) was quite good by 1863. By the night of the second, after questioning POWs they knew that Lee had committed all of his divisions except Pickett's. Knowing that Longstreet was located on the right, Meade surmised that if Lee attacked the next day, it would be in his center and advised (IIRC) Gen. Gibbons to be prepared. Gibbons division of Hancock's corp happened to located at the copse of trees. (This per Stephen Sears' book, "Gettysburg.)
When he describes Sheridan capturing Five Forks at around ~2:03 check out the far left side of the map behind him... Notice the word "Pickett"... Apparently Pickett went to a nearby fishfry and had a few drinks while his unit was being pulverized, with the loss of the railway junction he was charged with defending serving to initiate the breaking of the Petersburg stalemate, thus sending this whole final series of events into motion, including the torching of Richmond and up to the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia. When Pickett crossed paths with Lee not long afterwards, Lee remarked to a companion "Is he still with us?" with obvious disdain (discussed again ~51:30) ... Basically, I suspect this business about "Pickett's Division" was a bit of an "inside joke", darkly humorous to the confederates but not necessarily at the expense of Custer, but I could be wrong.
Longstreet Brilliant in defense. Amazing in counter attacking. Longstreet's acumen in understanding combat is unparalled in N his Time. if he had a great supply train like General Grant he would have probably given General Grant a good whippin'....., he proved it in his attack on General Grant.
Hey I love that clearly-spoken New York accent. The speaker does not appear to be in good shape and he's supposed to be an employee of a federal agency. Impressive.
Longstreet was right, if Lee would have listened to Longstreet there would be 2 nations today. If Longstreet would have taken over after Chickamauga who knows.
Longstreet was not a successful Independent Commander.... study his November 1863 Knoxville campaign. He was slow, he quarreled with his subordinates (he placed McLaws under arrest), and he launch unimaginative frontal assaults against intrenched Federal Army resulting in major losses to his command (and this is only 4 months after Gettysburg... when he's supposedly so "ahead of his time" defensively minded)... he ended up limping back to rejoin Braggs Army and he was never considered for Independent Command again. He had his chance and utterly blew it.... Longstreet proved that being a Corp Commander under Lee was the perfect place for him to be.
Dear Das McFeels, At the beginning of the civil war there was an idea that the South could win the war or at least weary the North into agreeing to allow the South to go its own way. By the end of the war it had become evident that North had just too many advantages that the South would not be able to overcome. 1. Population: Of the 20 largest cities in the U.S. at the beginning of the war only 3 were in the South. The North had a population of 22 million people. The South had a population of 9 million, 4 million of whom were slaves. By the end of the war the North had perhaps 3 large armies that would never see action because they weren’t needed. 2.The Officer Corps of the South, at the beginning of the war, was arguably superior to that of the North. The problem was numbers. As Southern officers were lost due to death or disability there were fewer and fewer to replace them. The North did not suffer this disadvantage. 3. While an argument might be made that the civil war was not about slavery in fact the economy of the South was based on slavery. By making slavery an economic issue rather than a moral issue Lincoln was able to persuade white men to risk their lives to fight for the abolition of slavery. Lincoln rightly pointed out that to break the back of the rebellion the Union had to break the back of the economic system supporting the Confederacy. Lincoln contributed to this goal politically by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation. Once news of the Emancipation Proclamation reached slaves in those areas still in rebellion, a mass exodus of slaves began heading toward Union lines. 4. The industrial North was already producing arms and material at the very beginning of the war. The agrarian South had to build factories and was never able to catch up. The South was unable to build a railway system efficient enough to move men and materials in large enough quantities to where needed. The North already had one in place. 5. Naval control of the waterways: Although the U.S. navy was not particularly powerful the Anaconda Plan to blockade the South did enjoy success on the Mississippi River and succeeded in splitting the Confederacy in two. This made it difficult for the states west of the Mississippi to transport food to the east. Beef from Texas had to be shipped first to the islands of the Caribbean and then up to Virginia. The blockade of the Atlantic coast, while not very effective was nevertheless effective enough to prevent the South from selling its staple crop cotton which really hurt the South’s economy. 6. Abraham Lincoln was a better and more determined head of government than was Jefferson Davis. (The South died of States Rights!)
I have thought long and hard on this subject of Lee ignoring Longstreet on that faithful day. Can’t help but wonder now if Lee had no intentions of marching on Washington… ever. To him a “peace” with the north was some type of reconciliation where states rights would be guaranteed to the south but they rejoin the union. What I’m saying is, to Lee, is was never a question of the country remaining divided, he was not for that. Only Lee could have decided that for the south. I could be wrong but as the author of “killer Angels” “There's nothing so much like a god on earth as a General on a battlefield.” Lee ignoring Longstreet that day makes no sense otherwise, the path to Washington was wide open. The North had no choice but to follow the confederates out of Gettysburg, off of the high ground and away from barricades and attack them on ground of the confederates choosing. Can help but wonder….
Lee should have done what Longstreet said? Who was in command? Longstreet did nothing to prepare for the orders he received from his commander the previous night and was not prepared in the morning. Therefor he did not take the field until the afternoon. This afforded Meade time to deploy more defensive measures thereby negating Lee's plan. I concede that there was no guarantee that Lee's plan would have worked but the delay caused by Longstreet's pouting all night guaranteed that it wouldn't. Also there is no guarantee Longstreet would have fared any better with his plan. How could he even believe he could out think Robert E. Lee anyway. Longstreet should have been court-marshalled or, at least, busted. This was not the time to be a Prima-Donna.
Longstreet's corps didn't arrive until the morning and was only with his first two divisions, he couldn't have attacked before the early afternoon and Longstreet told him that the night before. Pickett wouldn't arrive until well into nightfall of the second day.
Longstreets advice to move around Union left wasn't a practible option for Lee for many reasons: 1. AOP had many more scattered around that wasn't there yet and Union would have been stronger, 2 Lee could have easily found his supply line from WInchester cut off from him 3 Lee's army by now was allready suffering from lack of food and shoes and horses were eating twigs and bark 4 He didn't have the confidence that he needed had he had Jackson. 5 logistically speaking, there weren't good roads headed that direction that Lee could have used.
Longstreet was the reason Lee did intact surrender. Longstreet knew Grant and advised Lee he would be treated with grace. And, He was! Longstreet was the architect of peace.
To me these battles really showed the genius of Lee! He was fighting a losing war! Naval Blockade! Has lost Richmond by this point... But the casualties his army inflicted to the Union troops when they dug trenches in the battle of the Wilderness... They say in one day Lee lost like 500 men the Union losing 5,000! For the CSA to still be able to inflict that type of devastation to the Union army when Lee was basically already defeated really showed his brilliance in my mind! Also continued to show the stupidity of Union leadership even all the way up to the end! The Union the have encircled Richmond when they had Lee there! Then not even attack... Just starve them out... These frontal attacks the Union continued to do against Lee all the way up to his surrender was really stupid... It worked but lets say the south was able to replenish its armies as quickly as the Union was able too... The Union gets its ass kicked!
Measure the distance with a 5 mile buffer around Petersburg and Richmond…it would take 8 Union armies to follow your plan…CSA lost 80% of all battles in 1864
If, instead of surrendering at Appomattox, I have always wondered what might have happened if the Confederacy had decided to fight a guerrilla war. If they had taken to the mountains and wilderness and continued to harass the Union forces, the war could have continued for years. Quite possibly, the support for such a war by the citizens of the North would have waned, with pressure being applied to end the war under terms which would possibly been more favorable to the Confederacy than the ones they accepted at Appomattox. I am by no means advocating such an action, only wondering what the results might have been.
@@georgesouthwick7000 That's a awesome thought...but dam Sherman was destroying everything in his path and heading north after Atlanta He'd of been surrounded prob?
Lee was a horrific traitor. Why do you idolize him? He was a treasonous psychopath who got countless Americans killed for no reason. You should really be ashamed of yourself. You're living in a dreamworld. LOL Your last sentence in particular is troubling. So your idea of America is for the "Union" to lose and racist psychopaths to win? The Rebel Traitors LOST cause their cause was immoral, unjust and doomed. Admit it for Christ's sake.
I was born in "Bleeding Kansas" 85 years after the end of "the Northern War of Aggression" but I have always in my heart felt deeply for the South and feel I would have supported them had I lived at that time. It is a crime that lie that has been told the War was due to slavery.
Baja, as a native of Kansas you, more than any other, should understand that the U.S. Civil War was ABSOLUTELY due to slavery. Read the history of "bleeding Kansas," and learn what all the bleeding was about (hint: it wasn't about taxes). The only "crime" here is that you don't know your own history!
You should read the Articles of Secession passed by each southern state. as they left the United States. They were clear in 1861 that the war was about slavery.
pLEASE DON'T EMBARRASS US. Slavery and it's spread into new states was the reason, and racism is alive and well anywhere you care to gaze. It aint over. Also borne in Bleeding Kansas and raised there, but can't live there because of these beliefs so prevalent there.
Yip.. Lee should have listened to his officer's and remembered the battle of the crator at Petersburg.... He was very focused on time rather than winning!
Longstreet's failure was that he fell victim to the idea that Lee was unbeatable. He did not do anything to stop Lee at Gettysburg. Lee was too arragant and too self absorbed to know he could be wrong
At Gettysburg, Longstreet gave Lee his opinions of the tactical situation as he saw it. As Lee's chief subordinate it was his duty to advise the commanding general, and he did so. It was also his duty to follow orders, and he did so. In the end its Lee's command, and his orders. Lee was a general that preferred to take the initiative by offensive strategy... Like Winfield Scott in Mexico... it is simply his style of fighting a war, learned thru experience. And Longstreet knew exactly the kind of General Lee was. He was no mystery....
Longstreet is my favorite Southern general. Actually, he's the only Rebel general I have any use for. Postwar, he joined the Republicans --- back then the sane, decent, patriotic party, not the deranged, traitorous Christo-fascist thugs they are today -- and became fast friends with U.S. Grant. Outrageous that he didn't get a statue at Gettysburg until 1998 -- and even now it's way off the beaten path, highly inconspicuous.
How about Patrick Cleburne as another notable Southern asset, great in the field, deeply interested in arming slaves and giving them freedom , and destroyed before Franklin with 4 other generals in Hoods unwise last thrash? Longstreet is also my favorite Confederate, but like Lee, he chose the wrong cause. Cleburne was great at Perryville and against Sherman at Chattanooga.], among others.
I don’t mean any disrespect, but I can’t understand half of what he’s saying. Was he really the best speaker they could find? Again, I mean no disrespect.
@@womb_raider8316 It's a speech impediment. Turn on the captions and if you miss something you can probably figure out what it was. The person doing the captions missed a few things (such as calling Ord 'Ward' at points), but it makes it a bit easier.
What does "until properly exchanged" mean exactly? They are not allowed to take up arms against the United States until properly exchanged. Why add a qualifier? And what does it even mean?
Until Grant stopped the exchange of prisoners in 1864 (d/t the Confederates refusal to recognize USCT (black) soldiers as POWs) captured soldiers were paroled, taking an oath until they were exchanged. Groups of officers would meet under a truce flag, go over lists of prisoners then exchange them, sometimes 1:1 or maybe a major for 10 privates or 3 majors for a general. A soldier who violated his parole was liable to be executed (legally.) After the exchange he would be notified and ordered to return to his outfit.
Lee's style can best be described in two words -- AGRESSION and OPPERTUNITY. General Longstreet would be better suited for garrison duty. Lee had simply over extended his grasp, entrenched positions , the likes of which were avoided { rendered benign by isolation ) in other battles were simply unavoidable .
Michael Embree Longstreet preferred to stay on the defense and wait for the other side to make a mistake that he could exploit for a decisive victory without taking large casualties that the CSA couldn't afford. He was patient not indecisive. He proved it more then once relentlessly attacking Union armies, driving his men to complete exhaustion, when exploiting union mistakes. The Army of Northern Virginia basically destroy itself when Lee went on the offensive invading the north. In those two campaigns he constantly made rash, in some cases almost panicked decisions that wasted his man power.
